Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580.

2745 citing documents.

Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Michaels v. First USA Title, LLC 844 N.W.2d 528 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(applying that standard in the context of default judgments when no posttrial motions are made).
Volkman v. Hanover Investments, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Volkman v. Hanover Investments, Inc. 843 N.W.2d 789 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
(“[T]his court will not consider the applicability of [a legal theory] on appeal, even though the question was raised below, if it was not passed on by the [district] court below.” (quotation omitted)).
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Doe 175 ex rel. Doe 175 v. Columbia Heights School District, ISD No. 13 842 N.W.2d 38 Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Westfield Insurane Co. v. Wensmann, Inc. 840 N.W.2d 438 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
-83 (Minn.1988) (explaining that we “consider only those issues that ...
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
White v. City of Elk River 840 N.W.2d 43 Minn. 2013
("A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
General Mills Federal Credit Union v. Lofgren 839 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2013
General Mills Federal Credit Union v. Lofgren 839 N.W.2d 766 Minn. 2013
Stern v. Stern 839 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Stern v. Stern 839 N.W.2d 96 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
P. 103.04 (“On appeal from or review of an order the appellate courts may review any order affecting the order from which the appeal is taken and on appeal from a judgment may review any order involving the merits or affecting the judgment.”); (stating that the appellate court will not consider matters not raised or considered by the district court).
Koski v. Johnson 837 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Koski v. Johnson 837 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
No. 625, -50 (Minn.App.2002) (noting that “the substantial-compliance exception has only been applied when a party has attempted substitute service in accordance with the rules of civil procedure ” (emphasis added) ()).
In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. 835 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2013
In re Application of Skyline Materials, Ltd. 835 N.W.2d 472 Minn. 2013
and City of Morris v. Sax Investments, Inc., the Fields assert that the County has waived this argument.
Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
National Council on Teacher Quality v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 837 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
National Council on Teacher Quality v. Minnesota State Colleges & Universities 837 N.W.2d 314 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Although we do not address this argument because it was not presented by the parties to the district court, we observe that neither the text of the copyright act nor the cited caselaw offers any support for the notion that allowing a single party to view a copyrighted work constitutes a "public display” requiring the copyright owner’s consent.
Eischen v. Crystal Valley Cooperative 835 N.W.2d 629 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted).
Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration 834 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Schwanke v. Minnesota Department of Administration 834 N.W.2d 588 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(issues not raised to the district court will not be considered on appeal); Minn. R. Civ.App.
Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown 834 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Fiduciary Foundation, LLC v. Brown 834 N.W.2d 756 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)); (declining to address “due process claim” because “Ru
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Leiendecker v. Asian Women United of Minnesota 834 N.W.2d 741 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
(“A reviewing court must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the [district] court in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)).
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
Midwest Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wolters 831 N.W.2d 628 Minn. 2013
(holding that a reviewing court “must generally consider only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
In re the Welfare of B.A.H. 829 N.W.2d 431 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
But appellant may not “obtain review by raising the same general issue litigated below but under a different theory.”
Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes 831 N.W.2d 9 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Rochon Corp. v. City of St. Paul 831 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Rochon Corp. v. City of St. Paul 831 N.W.2d 651 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Embree v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n 828 N.W.2d 141 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Marriage of Kremer v. Kremer 827 N.W.2d 454 Minn. Ct. App. 2013
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
Beaulieu v. Minnesota Department of Human Services 825 N.W.2d 716 Minn. 2013
(explaining that this court generally considers “only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Healthstar Home Health, Inc. v. Jesson 827 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Healthstar Home Health, Inc. v. Jesson 827 N.W.2d 444 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(stating that generally appellate courts will not consider issues not decided by the district court).
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp. 822 N.W.2d 812 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
(holding that appellate courts will not consider matters not argued to and considered by the district court).
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
Ram Mutual Insurance Co. v. Rohde 820 N.W.2d 1 Minn. 2012
*14 (explaining that onr court “generally consider[s] ‘only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court in deciding the matter before it’ ” (quoting Thayer v. Am.
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Moore v. Hoff 821 N.W.2d 591 Minn. Ct. App. 2012

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by